Agenda item

Under the scheme of public participation Antony Pilling and Sheila Phillips spoke in support of the application.

It was proposed by Councillor Rollins and seconded by Councillor Sowden:

“That the application be deferred.”

Upon being put to the vote, 3 Members voted in favour of the proposition and 11 voted against, whereupon the Chairman declared the motion to be lost.

It was then proposed by Councillor Blamire and seconded by Councillor Ashworth:

“That the application be refused.”

Upon being put to the vote, 9 Members voted in favour of the proposition and 5 voted against, whereupon the Chairman declared the motion to be carried.

Resolved:

That Planning Permission be refused, with an Advice Note to encourage the Applicant to enter into pre-application discussions with the Local Authority to resolve the reasons for the refusal through additional information/amended plans. The Planning Permission was refused for the following reasons:

1.

The proposal will result in the loss of employment land within the rural area without it being demonstrated that the ongoing employment use of the site is no longer appropriate or viable. It is also not considered that the benefits of the proposal would outweigh this loss and would therefore not lead to a sustainable form of development. As a consequence, the proposal is contrary to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular the Core Planning Principles and Section 3, Saved policy EC16 of the Lancaster District Local Plan, Policy SC1 of the Core Strategy and Policy DM15 of the Development Management Development Plan Document.

2.

Insufficient information has been submitted to fully assess the impacts of the proposal on the fabric of the listed building, particularly in relation to the proposed alterations to the windows, details of the construction and internal appearance of the atrium and glazed porch extension, interventions required to provide appropriate ventilation and noise attenuation for the accommodation proposed and evidence to demonstrate the proposal is the optimum viable use for the building. In the absence of this information, the local planning authority cannot rule out potential harm to the listed building and could not exercise its duty to preserve the heritage asset. Furthermore, it is considered that from the information provided that the proposal would lead to some less than substantial harm to the building itself (internal partitions/loss of part of the external fire escape) and the setting of the listed building by virtue of the location and size of the proposal cycle storage facility and that the public benefits of the scheme would not outweigh the harm to the heritage asset when considered on balance with all the other concerns relating to the proposal. Subsequently, the proposal is considered contrary to paragraphs 128, 132 and 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policies DM30 and DM32 of the Development Management Development Plan Document.

3.

The level of parking proposed for a development of this scale and kind in a location that suffers congestion and on-street parking and where access to alternative parking provision is unavailable, is likely to lead to increased on-street parking thereby exacerbating existing parking and congestion problems in the village, Chapel Lane and Hazelrigg Lane to the detriment to public safety and the operation of the local highway network.  The lack of cycle parking provision and the inappropriately located cycle store would not overcome the concerns and would further discourage future occupants from choosing to use more sustainable transport modes, such as cycling. Subsequently, the proposed development is considered contrary to paragraphs 17 and 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework and polices DM35, D20, DM22, DM46 and appendix D of the Development Management Development Plan Document.

4.

The proposal will result in an unacceptable and poor standard of accommodation for a significant number of the studio apartments proposed in terms of the amount of natural light and outlook that will be available to future occupants of the accommodation to the detriment of their amenity.  Furthermore, the applicant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to convince the local planning authority that residential development physically adjoining and sitting adjacent to unrestricted industrial uses is appropriate or that sufficient, appropriate and practical refuse storage can be provided for a proposal of this scale. The proposal is therefore contrary to paragraph 17 and 123 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policies DM35 and DM46 and appendix D and F of the Development Management Development Plan Document.